< previous page page_173 next page >

Page 173
by departing two in a boatwhich could not be done secretly, because boat docks to great keeps are not left unguardedand coming back alone.
It was also said that John had gone secretly to Arthur's prison cell to talk to him, had flown into a rage, and had drawn his knife and stabbed the boy in a passion of anger. That was more possible than the boat story, but not really reasonable. First of all, Arthur, a nephew of the king, would not be kept in a cell; second, he would not be without attendants; third, the king would not go to his prisoner, but would have his nephew brought to him, if he wanted to talk. If John went to Arthur in a cell, it was deliberate murder that had taken place, not manslaughter in a fit of rage.
There had been still another set of rumors, and to these Alinor was most inclined. Arthur was said to have attempted to escape and to have been killed in the attempt. William of Salisbury believed this, and it was what he had told Ian. Alinor was willing to believe it, too, because John was not such a fool that he did not know that outright murder of his only rival for the throne, and his only heirspecially since that heir and rival was still a childwould not endear him to anyone. An attempted escape and accidental death at the hands of the guardsdeath by misadventurewas the obvious solution.
What Alinor could not understand was what had gone wrong. Why had these facts not been proclaimed? Why had Arthur's body not been displayed and bewailed by his grieving uncle? It was impossible to hide the fact that Arthur had disappeared. To pretend it was not so and refuse to explain merely gave rise to even more disgusting rumorslike the boat story. Perhaps very few would believe in the accident, but the arrow wound or the body broken by a fall should have been used as evidence to support the claim of an "accident."
Sir Guy's implication when he said his father had been one of Arthur's wardens could be taken several

 
< previous page page_173 next page >